Help: Should I allow mystics in my campaign?

[JobsforFun]

I want to start hosting a my own campaign and one of my friends wants to play either a Awakened Mystic or a Wu Jen Mystic, I wasn't sure if I should allow Mystics or not because I have heard people say they're op.

[AttilatheYeon]

Damn near all UA is OP. Mystic just had different mechanics than casters do. Don't allow it unless you really know how it works.

[Farecry]

Just disallow him to multiclass and it's a better balanced.

[Tanarii]

What's your goal? Player freedom of choice, game balance, campaign theme, or campaign setting? That should determine which races and classes (and other rules) you allow.

For example and IMO:
For an old-school feel open table campaign, single class works best (campaign theme)
For a Mystara / Known World campaign, Humans should be by far the most common PC race.
For balance, no UA, no matter what, works best.
(Unpopular opinion: no Feats makes a more balanced game as well.)

Poor For player freedom of choice, just let them play whatever they think is fun.

[Farecry]

And for ultimate freedom, random loot tables!! Well; chaos, but little difference there.

[Naanomi]

Mystic isn't bad without multiclassing. A strong first few levels, and an arguably weak 'end game', but nothing too far outside of existing bounds

(Response to unpopular opinion: I'd feel really crummy as a single class fighter in a no feat game after level 12 or so)

[Farecry]

Mystic isn't bad without multiclassing. A strong first few levels, and an arguably weak 'end game', but nothing too far outside of existing bounds

(Response to unpopular opinion: I'd feel really crummy as a single class fighter in a no feat game after level 12 or so)

Op 3 attacks though. :/

[Nettlekid]

If you're on the fence, I would say disallow it. It's a very different feel both fluff- and crunch-wise, like the style of "psychic magic" can be difficult to meld into some settings and the mechanics of the class are unusual compared to other casters. It's also balanced strangely, like I think it has potential but needs to be ironed out before it's good and fair. It would be easy to lose track of what that player is able to do, and personally as a DM I like knowing my players' potential.

[jaappleton]

Damn near all UA is OP. Mystic just had different mechanics than casters do. Don't allow it unless you really know how it works.

This isn't accurate.

There's several exceptions, as there are things that are laughably OP. That's true.

But there's plenty of UA that's more than fine.

[Tanarii]

(Response to unpopular opinion: I'd feel really crummy as a single class fighter in a no feat game after level 12 or so)Possibly. But in a Tier 1 & 2 open-table multi-party sand-box campaign (jargon!) it seems to work okay.

Otoh non-EK Fighters (and Barbarians) aren't as popular choices in that case. This may be because no Feats, but the most common reasons cited appear to be No spells. And that they're by far the most commonly available as meat sh... uh, henchmen.

[coredump]

I would bet that an Official Mystic is likely in a few months.
With the new hard cover

[jaappleton]

I would bet that an Official Mystic is likely in a few months.
With the new hard cover

Already confirmed that Mystic won't be official any time before the end of 2017.

So if you're still willing to bet, I'll take your money. :smallbiggrin:

[Naanomi]

Otoh non-EK Fighters (and Barbarians) aren't as popular choices in that case. This may be because no Feats, but the most common reasons cited appear to be No spells. And that they're by far the most commonly available as meat sh... uh, henchmen.If only they could access some special tricks that made them have some offensive potential, not just as bags of HP but something really unique and threatening... some sort of special ability to do something special, a special feat if you will. Oh well, a girl can dream...

[Mortis_Elrod]

If you read and understood the UA, and are still unsure go ahead and disallow it. I would hate to play a mystic and then half way through get hit with a nerf hammer because the DM didn't do a bit of reading. I would rather play something else.

That being said its not OP but its by no means weak, though certain things are stronger and weaker than other things. Its a very customized class.

If i were you i would

1. read up on the mystic and get a good grasp on how it works and what it can and can't do.
2. ask the player what they plan to do with the character (feats, multiclass)
3. Ask the player if they have any alternative character ideas they are willing to try
4. Determine if it fits your campaign (Setting/lore wise.)

In that order. After that decide yes or no to allow it.

[ChainsawFlwrcld]

In my almost 40 years of playing D&D I have never had a good experience with a Psionic class. Every time I get a game with a psionic they turn in to Stephen King's "Carrie" or a puppet master that trounces all of the PCs, NPPs and the Monsters because the older versions of D&D had silly ways to resist the abilities.

That being said,the Mystic reads fun and I really like the talents that they have. I would be tempted to let it in a game but on a narrow leash cause history has jaded me a little.

[Jamesps]

I don't think the class in its basic architecture is over powered, but certain specific abilities in the discipline list are extremely powerful at low levels. This is a much easier fix though than if the class itself had overpowered abilities. It's much easier to balance a caster class when they have overpowered spells than when they have overpowered class abilities.

[Tanarii]

If only they could access some special tricks that made them have some offensive potential, not just as bags of HP but something really unique and threatening... some sort of special ability to do something special, a special feat if you will. Oh well, a girl can dream...
Non-spell classes (in particular the 2 Fighter subclasses and Barbarian) are plenty balanced enough without directly offensive feats. OTOh if you take out or modify GWM, PAM and Sharpshooter, many of the others certainly add some interesting customizations. So I guess it's really just those three feats I object to in terms of balance.

[cZak]

My major complaint is how poorly written the article is. Notably Psionic Mastery & Mystical Recovery.
But pretty sure most issues can be resolved with some common sense & a little pre-discussion before use.

There's a lot of front loaded abilities to the class (Levels 2 to 5). But it does lose a bit after level 9.
Also, a lot of versatility; many of the disciplines provide 2 or 3 options for minimal resources (2-3pp).
And some abilities have a low cost compared to an equivalent spell; Master of Force-Grasp vs Bigby's hand

But it's incredibly versatile.
I've been looking through the disciplines and thought experimenting on a Warlord type party buffer/enemy debuffer.
Mantle o Command, Mantle o Joy, Giant Growth, etc...

The healing in the class is kind of subpar. Unless you're an Avatar, you don't get stat bonus to heals.
But the availability of temp hit points is multiple; Mantle o Courage, Mantle o Joy.
The Immortal, at 3+ level gets there Int bonus in temp hit points every round. Which might be a bit much but very fitting for the name.


I'd just read through & talk over with your player what they're planning.
If something seems too much, try to agree to avoid it or as a trial basis.

[Jamesps]

The healing in the class is kind of subpar. Unless you're an Avatar, you don't get stat bonus to heals.
But the availability of temp hit points is multiple; Mantle o Courage, Mantle o Joy.
The Immortal, at 3+ level gets there Int bonus in temp hit points every round. Which might be a bit much but very fitting for the name.


At low levels the healing is actually decent, even if you're not an Avatar. They get a better return on dice for spell points since its 1:1 instead of the weird ratio clerics get.

Clerics spend 2 spell points (1st level spell) and get 1d8 for a cure. Mystics get 2d8, and they can use their bonus action to tack on a 2pt heal for themselves. It's a pretty good deal at low levels.

[sky red hunter]

mystic is a joke, its for 'special snowflake' players who want to be brilliant at everything. save yourself and the fellow players a lot of hassle and don't allow it.

[Jerrykhor]

If you allow wizards, you should allow mystics.

[McNinja]

I want to start hosting a my own campaign and one of my friends wants to play either a Awakened Mystic or a Wu Jen Mystic, I wasn't sure if I should allow Mystics or not because I have heard people say they're op.
There's nothing OP about the class. As someone who's playing a Wu Jen in a game, it is no more powerful than a Bard. It's just different.

Edit: I agree it's not tuned well for Multiclassing, but at the same time, who cares? The Mystic multiclassing with anything won't break the game. Not even close.

[Kane0]

Sure, why not.

If you're super concerned just disallow multiclassing with it.

All you gotta do is make a couple rulings on some of the badly worded abilities and you're good to go.

[McNinja]

mystic is a joke, its for 'special snowflake' players who want to be brilliant at everything. save yourself and the fellow players a lot of hassle and don't allow it.
You didn't read the Mystic UA, did you?